THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. If I had any sense at all I would simply
quit while I'm ahead. (Laughter.) That was a wonderful statement,
Mr. Mayor, given by a person who's in a position to know.

I've said many times in the last six years or so that, as I've had
a chance to travel this country, the most gifted and innovative
public servants in America today are the mayors of the cities that
are beginning to work again for all the people, and Philadelphia is
certainly is, and in no small measure because of you. (Applause.)

I know most of you heard what I had to say downstairs and I
won't make you sit through it again. So I would just like to try
to build on what the Mayor said. I've been feeling rather nostalgic
lately; this last week was the sixth anniversary of my declaring for
President, and the end of this week is my 22nd wedding anniversary.
And Hillary and I are dealing with the empty next syndrome, so we
have time to think -- (laughter) -- we have time to think high
thoughts at night now, instead of wondering when Chelsea is going
to bed. Stop studying, turn out the light, you can't learn after
1:00 a.m. -- or something. (Laughter.)

Let me just say that I am, first of all, very grateful for the last
almost five years. I've tried to do what I said I would do when I
ran for President. A leading political scientist said before I was
reelected that I had already kept a higher percentage of my promises
than the last five Presidents, and that I made more than they did,
which really was something. And I was very grateful to hear that.

This last balanced budget meant a great deal to me because
I thought it would be a good thing for the country psychologically,
as well as economically, to have a balanced budget for the first time
in a generation. And I thought it was important to prove that you
could balance the budget and still have the biggest increase in
investment and health care for working families and poor children
and in education since 1965.

And I do agree with Mayor Rendell, I think the biggest legacy
of that budget over the long-term will be that we literally have
opened the doors of college to everybody who will work for it
now -- because we had the biggest increase in Pell Grants in
20 years; we go up to a million people in work-study; we have
IRAs that people can save in and withdraw from without penalty
if you use it to pay for education. You get a $1,500 tax credit
for the first two years of college, the HOPE Scholarship, and then
other tax credits for the junior, the senior year, graduate school,
or when people go back. It's a great, great thing.

But I'd like to just sort of ask you to take a few minutes
and sort of look at what underlies that. Six years ago when I
decided to run for President I was -- I had been a governor for
quite a long while. And one of the things that bothered me was
that the rhetoric that came out of Washington and the fights that
the political parties had seemed increasingly disconnected from
the life that I knew my friends to be living, and my people to
be living.

And it was all sort of left-right, liberal-conservative,
this box-that box, this conflict-that conflict. And it didn't
seem to me to really work. I mean, I didn't know anybody who
talked like that except in Washington. I never met anybody on
the street that talked like that. And it really bothered me --
because I admired a lot of the people in Washington, frankly,
in both parties, with whom I had worked. I didn't understand it.
But I just thought that we were locked into a dialogue with each
other in Washington that was actually preventing anything from
getting done and moving the country forward.

And essentially what I thought was that the Republicans
understood the importance of the market, but were blind to the
needs to give everybody the tools and conditions to take advantage
of the market; but the Democrats understood the importance of
compassion and of trying to take care of everybody and the social
contract, but too often were unwilling to make the tough decisions
to get the economy going, which is still the best social program
for everybody who has got a good job; and that somehow we had to
reconcile that and develop a dynamic approach to politics so that
we could have this debate between the two parties, and one would
be more liberal and the other would be more conservative, and the
debate would go on, but at least it would be about the real choices
facing the country and the real lives of people.

And I decided that if I didn't do anything else in the
campaign -- and when I started only my mother thought I could
win -- (laughter) -- that I was going to try to change the terms
of the debate, so we would be talking about real things in a real
way that could have a real impact on the way people live. And in
a way I tried to be President the way I served as Governor or the
way Ed Rendell serves as Mayor.

So let me just sort of take stock about where we are.
I said, we're going to have to take a new direction. If we're
going to have opportunity for everybody responsible enough to
work for it, if you're going to rebuild the American community
with all this diversity, and if we're going to maintain America's
leadership, then we have to focus on it. Instead of the old
left-right-liberal-conservative, we said we have to be for the
future, not the past; for change, not the status quo; for unity,
not division; for policies that help everybody, not just a few
people; and we have to do things that will help us lead, not follow.

I love that old one-liner that unless you're the lead dog
on the sled, the view's always the same. (Laughter.) And I think
it's something that we have to remember. Because as I told the
young people down there tonight, it's very frustrating to me that
I have not been able to persuade my fellow Americans of the benefits
of our involvement in the world on a general, philosophical level.
And I regret that. I've got to keep working on that. I've got to
find a way to do a better job of that.

But if you look at where we are now compared to where we
were, with the economic policy that says basically we're going
to charge head on into the global marketplace, but we're going
to try to preserve the social contract at home and give everybody
a chance to play -- what that has meant in practical terms is
expand trade, be fiscally responsible and balance the budget,
but invest more in education, invest more in environmental
technology, invest more in the health care of our people, and
support things like family and medical leave and the minimum wage
and the adoption tax credit and things that enable people to build
strong families while they go to work.

Support the empowerment zone like the one Philadelphia has,
and community financial institutions that loan money to new
entrepreneurs that couldn't get money at the local bank otherwise.
Do things that bring the benefits of free enterprise into the inner
cities. The other big trade opportunity we've got in America is all
these neighborhoods where people are unemployed or underemployed --
if they were all working, that would be a big market for America's
future.

So that's what we've tried to do. And I think it's
incontestable that it has worked. We've never generated so many
jobs in such a short time -- over 13 million now in less than
five years. And it has worked. There is more to do, but it has
worked.

With the crime program -- the mayor talked about that.
What we wanted to do was to be tough and smart. We had people
in Washington that wanted to pass tougher and tougher sentences
when the police were screaming, give me more police officers and
I'll not only catch more criminals, I'll prevent crime. Give me
people who can walk the streets and know the kids and know the
parents and know the neighbors, and we'll drive the crime rate
down. And that's what we did.

And it had to be done. It cost us a few members of Congress
in 1994, but sooner or later, the federal government had to take on
the people who said that it was wrong to have any restriction on
guns. And what we did with the Brady Bill and the assault weapons
ban has made this a safer country. It was the right thing to do.
It's something we take for granted now. We wonder what else we
ought to do. But it was a huge thing at the time it occurred.
And our party sacrificed so many House members that it may -- that
alone may have cost us the House in '94, including some here in
Pennsylvania, because all these people were told we were coming
after their guns.

But in 1996, I had the pleasure of going back to New Hampshire
and looking at all those people with their hunting license and
saying, do you remember two years ago when they told you we were
coming after your guns and you beat one of our congressman? I said,
every one of you that lost your gun, you ought to vote against me,
too. But if you didn't, you need to know they lied to you and you
need to let them know you don't appreciate it. And we carried New
Hampshire again and turned it around, because people now say we can
have safe streets, we can have responsible gun laws. There's no
reason somebody who's got a felony record or serious mental
instability should be able to walk in and buy a handgun without
even being checked out.

So we changed the debate now. The debate is not this sort
of abstract argument about the second amendment. The debate is,
how can we preserve the culture, the way of life, the legitimate
desire of people to go out and hunt and fish and do what they ought
to be able to do, and make our streets safe and stop these kids
from getting killed in Philadelphia. The Mayor told the truth --
there are kids all over this country that don't believe they'll ever
live to be 50. Why should they ever forego anything that's bad for
them since they're not going to be around very long. But at least
we've changed the debate now, we're moving forward.

I think we changed the nature of the welfare debate.
Today we found out another 250,000 people moved off the welfare
rolls last week. There are now 3.6 million Americans living off
paychecks instead of welfare checks that weren't when I became
President. That's how much we've reduced the rolls by,
3.6 million. (Applause.)

Why? Because the answer was not to throw people in the
street and it's fine to require people to go to work. But you
also have to realize they had young children; that's why they're
on welfare in the first place. So they've got to be able to take
care of their kids -- so don't take their health care away, don't
take their food stamps away, and give them medical care and give
them child care.

Because the biggest problem most families face, even a
lot of well-to-do families with young children face terrible
problems of reconciling their responsibilities as parents and
their responsibilities to the work force. There are people in
this room who have good incomes who have had lots of days where
you were tearing your hair out, trying to figure out how you could
do what you thought you ought to be doing at work and still do the
right thing by your children. It is the single-most significant
social challenge facing all classes of Americans. Why? Because
our biggest job is still raising our kids right. That's more
important than everything else. If we do that right, most
everything else will be all right.

On the other hand, if we have to, in order to do that,
basically crater our family's income, wreck a business, or
weaken the American economy, that's a price we shouldn't have
to pay. That's why all these family leave policies and all
that is so important.

So we tried to say, okay, we'll step into the gap here.
That's why we passed family and medical leave and raised the
minimum wage and passed that Kennedy-Kassebaum bill that said
you can keep your health insurance when you change jobs or
somebody in your family is sick. Or stop the sort of drive-by
deliveries, where women could be thrown out of the hospital
after they had a baby within 24 hours. Or provided the extra
tax credit so we get people to adopt kids who are homeless and
desperately need homes.

Why? Because we're trying to figure out a way to grow the
economy and support families. Not the same debate -- it's not
an either-or. We have to find a way to do both things, to have
balance and harmony in America.

The same thing with the environment. I consider myself
a passionate environmentalist, and yet, you know that I have
devoted most of my energies in my first term to getting the
economy going again. I think if we have to choose we're in
terrible trouble.

But most of the choices are false choices. I remember when
the United States decided -- this was before my time -- to limit
sulphur dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and everybody said,
this is going to cost a ton of money and it's going to bankrupt
the country and we'll never get it done on the timetable, and we
let the market take over. They set up a permit trading system for
sulphur dioxide emissions permitting, and a few years later, we're
way ahead of schedule at far less than half the predicted cost and
the economy is booming. Because we found a way to get the private
sector and its creativity involved in protecting and cleaning up
our environment.

That's what we have to do with this greenhouse gas problem
that's warming the climate. If we do this right, we will create
jobs, we will not shut down jobs, and we'll preserve the environment
for our children.

So we got out of the environment -- so the Republicans are
for jobs and the Democrats are for the environment. The liberals
are for the environment, the conservatives for jobs. What a crazy
way to live. I want to be able to breathe when I go to and from
work. This is not a debate that should be structured this way.
So I think we've changed it.

And the last thing I'd like to say in that regard is this
whole business about how we should handle our diversity. I
could see it coming even in '92. The whole thing was, are you
for or against affirmative action. What I'm for is everybody
having a chance to participate in this country's life. And if
people don't have a chance, then I am poorer.

It is a selfish thing to want every America, without
regard to their race, their neighborhood, their background, or
where they start out in life, to have a good chance to make it.
That is a selfish thing for you to feel, because if they don't,
then they're a drag on your future. And if they do, then they're
contributing to your future. So we tried to reform the affirmative
action programs without getting rid of them. Why? Because it was
manifestly clear that there is still an absence of completely equal
educational and economic opportunity in America. But that's not
the main thing. The main thing we've got to do is get everybody
a job, everybody an education, and open opportunity to people.

The other thing I tried to get the American people to think
about is, we are well on our way to becoming a country in which
there is no majority race. Before midway through the next century
people of European heritage will not have a majority of the
population, before 2050. We don't know exactly when, but sometime
before then. Within about five years, that will be the case in
California.

Now, we have always said we were a country bound together
by ideas and ideals, not by any particular piece of land and not
by any race and not by any standard. When we started out you had
to be a white male property owner to vote. We've slowly shed all
that stuff. We've moved toward more and more and more equality.
But we are now going to have to face the fact that in a global
society our greatest asset is our diversity. But if you look at
the problems other countries are having, and the problems that are
still lurking under the surface here from place the place, it could
also be our greatest problem.

Now, it seems to me to be foolish to have yesterday's debate
about this. The facts are, here we are -- I said to the group
downstairs and I will say again -- the most diverse school district
in the country apparently is the one that's across the river from
Washington, D.C., in Fairfax County, Virginia, where there are
children from 182 countries in one school district, speaking over
100 languages. But there are five school districts already in
America where there are kids whose native tongue numbers more
than 100. And there will be 12 within a couple years.

In every school district, there are school districts that
had no diversity at all four or five years ago that now have
large Hispanic populations where people had to be brought in
because there was a negative unemployment rate. So this is
happening across America.

Now, what's our attitude about this? Are we going to think
about this in future terms or in yesterday's terms? Are we going
to look at people who are different from us as a great opportunity
to make our lives more interesting or as some problem we have to
deal with? This is a huge issue.

The one thing I'm convinced of is, if we think about the
future instead of the past, and change and not the status quo,
and unity instead of division, and what helps everybody instead
of what helps a few people, we are highly likely to make the right
decision. And it is very important.

So if, in addition to what the Mayor said about hope for
young people -- I want you all to think about this. I want you
to do what I try to do. When you get up tomorrow, think about:
What would I like America to look like 20 years from now? What
would I like America to look like when my children are my age?
What would I like my legacy to my children to be in terms of my
country? And I think that if we do that, we're going to be
just fine.

I have seen, in the last five years -- if I had told you
five years ago, when I was inaugurated President, in five years
we'll have over 13 million new jobs and the biggest drop in
welfare in history and five years of dropping violent crime
and the environment will be cleaner and the public health will
be more secure and America will be clearly leading the world
toward a more peaceful situation -- you would have been pretty
happy, wouldn't you? But you probably wouldn't have believed it.
At that point, we didn't have much self-confidence. And this was
not rocket science; we just sort of showed up for work every day.
This was not rocket science.

I thought about how would I -- how should I be President
and the way I would behave if I were mayor, the way I would
behave if I were governor, the way I would behave if I were
running any other big enterprise -- remembering that my bosses
are the American people as a whole. And I think we've changed
the direction of the Democratic Party. I hope we've changed
the direction of the political debate in the country. I hope
eventually we'll also change the direction of the Republican Party
so we'll have a principled debate about where the dynamic center
of America ought to be on education questions and environmental
questions and other questions for the future.

But when you come here and contribute to this, I just want
you to understand that. I'd also just like to say this last thing.
I think that we have changed the way government works. State and
local governments, the private sector are in more partnerships with
us now. We have 300,000 fewer people than we used to; 16,000 fewer
pages of regulation. We've reformed a lot of our laws and our
processes. The only thing we haven't reformed is campaign finance,
and that's because if we had a majority in Congress today, at least
enough to break a filibuster, we could do that. But we may get that
if we keep working at it. And that will be nice, because I'll still
have dinner with you and it will be less expensive for you. And
we'll have a good time. (Laughter and applause.) That would be
important, too. That's important, too.

And let me just say one last thing to all of you. I'm glad
you're here. I appreciate your support. We ought to pass this
McCain-Feingold bill, but the work wont be done until we lower
the cost of campaigns. And to do that, you have to lower the cost
of communicating with the voters. That's what really has driven
this whole thing. So people who observe strict campaign limits
ought to be rewarded with free or reduced air time and other means
of communication with people so they can afford it. Sometimes we
put the cart before the horse and we forget what has been driving
all this. And I hope we can do that.

I just want you to feel good about your country. We're in
better shape than we were five years ago. We're having a debate
that makes sense again, by and large. We're arguing over things
that are important, that will make a difference to your future.
And you should feel very good about your country. You should be
very strongly confident in the role you've played in it.

But I want to make it clear that for all the things that
have been done, we've got a lot to do between now and the 21st
century. And I intend to work to the last minute of the last
hour of the last day, until the Constitution puts me out to
pasture, to do my part.

But even then, there will be more to do. And I just hope
you can remember and believe in these basic ideas and make sure
that our party keeps pushing this basic line, to throw this country
into the future, because this is a great place and it has been
given to us to sort of take it through this transition.

And here in Philadelphia, where it all began -- I was
talking to the Mayor tonight about what John Marshall wrote
when he heard George Washington had died, and he heard it here
and he couldn't go home to Virginia and get there in time for his
funeral. So all the founding fathers had to organize a service
for President Washington here. And we were thinking about it --
just think about it, over 200 years ago. We're still around
because people like us, in the past, at every moment of change,
did the right thing. And that's what we really have to be doing
now.

I think we're going in the right direction. But you should
not flag in your commitment. You shouldn't be discouraged, you
should be encouraged and you should know that if we face the
challenges that are still out there and complete this transition,
that clearly -- clearly -- the best days of our country are still
ahead.